What's happening in Utah (video Sunday)

A little Broadway Christmas -- SFGMC

Merry Christmas everybody!

From the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus:

The Rabbi tells it like it is (voices of faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: (my emphasis)

I am an orthodox Rabbi, and I freely acknowledge that the Bible clearly labels homosexuality a sin. However, it is not a moral sin but rather akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread on Passover. It may violate the divine will, but there is nothing immoral about it....

Judaism, I feel, has a very healthy approach to homosexuality. It’s this simple. There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is a prohibition on homosexual relations. Another is an obligation to have children. I tell gay couples all the time. “You have 611 commandments left to you. That should keep you busy. Now, go give charity, honor the Sabbath, put a mezuzah on your door, keep a kosher home, and pray to God three times a day for you are his beloved children and He seeks you out.”
.....
Faith-based opposition to homosexuality as a religious sin is understandable, just as religious opposition to eating on Yom Kippur is understandable. But all this other stuff—it is immoral, doesn’t lead to procreation, is part of a promiscuous lifestyle—seems more relevant to the revolting and growing culture of drunken hookups, particularly on the American campus, where women are treated by men as little more than fleshy masturbatory material. Yet we almost never hear religious leaders decrying the promiscuity of the heterosexual club culture with anything near the intensity with which they attack gays. Indeed, the strangest thing about traditional people attacking gay marriage is that the only men left in America who seem eager to marry are gay. While homosexuals petition the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to marry, straight guys are living with their girlfriends for half a millennium and still struggle to commit.

As an orthodox Rabbi, I am not pro-gay marriage. I feel the best solution to the same-sex marriage debate is simple: marriage for none, civil unions for all. Let our government withdraw fully from the marriage business, opting instead to grant civil unions to the couples who seek them, be they straight or gay. This is simply a question of equal rights for government matters like tax and inheritance benefits and end-of-life decisions. But marriage, a religious institution, should be consecrated by priests and clergymen as dictated by their conscience.

By ending the gay marriage debate once and for all, we might even address the real values corrosion in America, such as the 50 percent divorce rate, the lack of a national year of service and the death of family dinners. But obsessing over gays guarantees that we’ll forever duck America’s problems. Just because it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn’t always mean it’s a duck. And just because religious people blame gays for the moral decline of marriage doesn’t mean that we straight people haven’t done a mighty fine job of ruining the family ourselves.

Thea and Edie.... family photos (video Sunday)

Thea Spyer and Edie Windsor had.... have.... a great love story.  And Edie lives life fully, in love and remembrance of Thea.

Marriagei n UTAH?

Unexpectedly, a federal district judge has rule in favor of equality in Utah. From the decision:

Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

Remarkably, he didn't stay the decision, so couples have rushed out to get married.

The Governor is not happy.  Nor is the Mormon church.

An appeal has been filed, and a request for a stay is expected. Whether the marriages will remain intact or be annulled?  well....we pre-Prop8 couples have been there, done that.  Ours were "grandfathered in" after Prop H8.  Good luck, brothers and sisters!

UTAH?

Update:  excellent analysis from Think PRogress here.

Equality in New Mexico! Merry Christmas!

From the Albuquerque Journal:

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of same-sex couples, granting them all the same rights of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples. 

The court’s 31-page ruling states, in part, that: “All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.”

From the opinion:

Although this question arouse sincerely-felt religious beliefs both in favor and against same-gender marriages, our analysis does not and cannot depend on religious doctrine without violating the Constitution....

Procreation is not the overriding purpose of the New Mexico marriage laws. The purpose of the New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationships of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their property, and their children, if they choose to have children....

We fail to see how depriving committed same-gender couples, who want to marry and raise families, of federal and state marital benefits and protections will result in responsible child-rearing by heterosexual married couples. ...

Excluding same-gender couples from civil marriage prevents children of same-gender couples from enjoying the security that flows from the rights, protections, and responsibilities that accompany civil marriage. There is no substantial relationship between New Mexico's marriage laws and the purported governmental interest of responsible child-rearing. There is nothing rational about a law that penalizes children by depriving them of state and federal benefits because the government disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation.

60 years: a love story (Why it Matters)

From Oregon Public Broadcasting:

This is the story of an Oregon couple. They married in Washington after more than 60 years together but were racing against the clock.
....
But one couple that made the rainy trek is trying to meet a different kind of deadline. 

Eric Marcoux and Eugene Woodworth have been together since they the day they met in Chicago in 1953. 

“I am here today to be legally married to Eugene Woodworth, with whom I have had an intimate deeply committed relationship for a little over sixty years,” Marcoux says.
Marcoux is 83 years old and Woodworth is 85. 

They can’t marry in Oregon, where a constitutional amendment outlaws same-sex marriage. When same-sex marriage was legalized in Washington last year, they didn’t rush across the state line to get married. 

“No, no, no….” says Woodworth.

“We wanted to have it in Oregon,” Marcoux explains. 

But Woodworth has been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and he’s been given weeks to live. They’re getting married today with the hope that Marcoux might be eligible to receive social security benefits as the surviving spouse.
....
The couple say today’s ceremony is merely a formality. But Woodworth chokes up as his partner slips the ring on his finger. 

“And now by the power vested in me by the state of Washington, I declare you to be legally married. And you may kiss,” the judge finishes the ceremony. 

“We met sixty years ago and this is the first legal thing. It’s such a pity we had to wait that long, ” Woodworth tells the judge. 

After the ceremony ends, the two make their way out to their car for the 20-minute drive home to Oregon.

“We made it. Wonderful we made it,” Marcoux says closing the door.

Polygamy case is about religious freedom

A follow up on our previous discussion about the recent court decision in Utah. From The HuffPo first, de-coupling polygamy and same sex marriage:

Gay rights however do not inexorably lead to the legalization of polygamy. While the ability to choose one's sexual partners is an important element of constitutionally protected privacy, the government may have stronger reasons to ban polygamy than gay sexual or marital relationships. Polygamy has long been associated with unique harms: the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into ma rriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated communities. Gay rights don't pose any of these problems. Rather, they are about the very opposite: reducing the oppression of minorities, allowing adults to engage in consensual sexual activity, and minimizing the social and psychological displacement caused by anti-gay discrimination....

And next, explaining how this is really about religious freedom. You remember religious freedom, don't you? (my emphasis)

What's unconstitutional is Utah's ban on a married person cohabiting with another, and here's why. First, the court says the law impinges on religious freedom by targeting only religious people for prosecution. Adulterers sometimes cohabit -- that is, live as a spouse with someone else -- but the state admitted to only going after Mormon cohabiters. As a result, the judge ruled, Utah's law was in practice discriminatory. Second, the court said that this distinct treatment of cohabiters was irrational. If a married person cohabiting with another is a threat to society, then why target only religiously motivated people? Utah, by only restricting in practice some cohabitation by married people, violates the baseline requirement of the Constitution that every law must further some rational government policy.

No, the Utah decision has nothing to do with civil marriage

In Utah, as in other states, it is illegal to seek a marriage license when you are already married to someone else.  THat is, no civil poly-marriage.

However, in Utah, they also criminalize people who cohabit for religious reasons.  That is, even if you aren't seeking civil marriage, if you simply live in a polygamous situation, you are breaking the law.  But only if you are doing it for religious reasons.

You know what?  As long as your sexual expression is private and consensual, the state has no business criminalizing it.

And that's all the judge found.

From Think Progress:

The Utah case involved a suit filed by Kody Brown and his wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn, who are featured on the TLC documentary show Sister Wives. They argued that Utah’s anti-polygamy laws infringed upon their Mormon religious practice and their privacy, and District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed. But Waddoups’ decision leaves in place that it is illegal in Utah to be legally married to more than one person at the same time, which begs the question of what exactly he actually overturned.

Utah’s laws go far beyond limiting an individual to only one marriage license. As Waddoups recounted in his decision, the statute also prohibits “cohabitation,” referring to any situation in which a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Even though Kody Brown only has a marriage license with one of his wives, the fact that he has a living arrangement that includes other individuals he refers to as wives — deemed “religious cohabitation” in the Mormon context of multiple marriages — was thus a violation of the law. Indeed, the law seems to punish those who claim multiple marriages even if those marriages exist only in a religious — not civil — context. This, Waddoups ruled, was not only an intrusion into their religious beliefs, but also a violation of their right to private consensual sexual behavior as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the country’s so-called “sodomy laws” criminalizing same-sex relations.

Not about marriage.  Simply about religious freedom and privacy.

If conservatives REALLY believed in preserving marriage....

In France, the "civil union" equivalent or PAC is as popular with straights as with gays.  They like that it isn't so rigid.  Some of our opponents have claimed to be pro-civil union (though usually that's a fig leaf that falls off pretty fast).  But if they were pro-civil union, they might have a problem--if such arrangements were available to straights. From the HuffPO:

Once the marriage monopoly is broken up so that different-sex couples have a choice, the competition is likely to last. Where they are available to all couples, experimental new alternatives to marriage have been resilient to change, even after marriage equality is achieved. This has proven true from Belgium and the Netherlands, to Washington, D.C., Hawaii and Illinois, which all recognize gender-neutral marriage alternatives as well as marriage. Apparently, political majorities are hesitant to surrender their existing choices. 

In the end, all couples could be left to pick-and-choose among a menu of civil unions, domestic partnerships and reciprocal beneficiary relationships, as well as marriage for both same and different-sex couples. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, it certainly cannot appeal to conservatives if they care more about preserving traditional marriage than about showing disapproval of LGBT families. By refusing marriage to same-sex couples, social conservatives are undermining traditional marriage more than lesbian brides and gay grooms ever could.

Duncan's bar mitzvah (video Sunday)

Bakery in CO loses case

here's the deal.  If there is an anti-discrimination statute that protects LGBT people, you can't discriminate against LGBT people.

It doesn't matter if your religion hates LGBT people.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if your religion hates Muslims, or people who eat pork, or Catholics, or black people.  You don't get to deny service to someone in a head scarf, or wearing a cross.  Your faith thinks women should be seen and not heard?  You still don't get to deny women service.

If you run a business (which is licensed by the state, remember), you can't choose whom to serve .

And the courts in CO agree.  Says the judge,

Compelling a bakery that sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples to also sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples is incidental to the state’s right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree. To say otherwise trivializes the right to free speech....

And because baking a cake is not part of religion,  or speech,

Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.

Our progress...and a big black blot

From Joe.My.God

What do Lesbians look like? (Video Sunday)

A gay brain drain from unfriendly states?

I've argued this before, but don't be surprised if gays are leaving unfriendly states--at some cost.

[Search Consultant] McCormack says his gay and lesbian clients who are hot prospects now have clear choices when it comes to legal protections. 

"I would say one of the first questions we get from any LGBT candidate is about corporate benefits, and whether they are available to same-sex partners. If that answer is no, that is a big red flag for them."...

Certainly many gay and lesbian professionals, managers, professors and members of the creative class may simply vote with their feet and leave. In this mobile society, it's too easy for a talented worker who is in demand to move to the other America....

Corporate headhunter McCormack expects LGBT employees to be pro-active and move, and the same goes for many of his straight clients. 

"It's not just because LGBT people may choose to work there," McCormack says about gay-friendly states and companies, "It's a whole generation who have grown-up accepting LGBT co-workers as equals who do not want to work for companies that aren't progressive."

We all have closets (video Sunday)

9th circuit rules domestic partnerships separate and not equal

From ThinkProgress:

The Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council has ruled that a federal law clerk in Oregon who was denied health benefits for her same-sex domestic partner was discriminated against and must be compensated....

The decision navigates the confusing conflict between how states and the federal government recognize same-sex relationships since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (United States v. Windsor). Oregon does not offer marriage, but does recognize and provide benefits to same-sex domestic partners. The federal government now recognizes same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. The ruling indicates that this conflict creates fault on both ends: Oregon is discriminating by not providing Fonberg with marriage and the federal government is discriminating by limiting what they’ll recognize to relationships called “marriages”:

Kids react to gay marriage (Video Sunday)

Christians moving ahead on marriage, leaving their churches behind

An excellent article in the American Prospect on the Gay Awakening:

Schaeffer's trial.... has highlighted the growing divide among the faithful over homosexuality. It's a rift that extends across denominations. Except for the Episcopal Church, which recognized same-sex unions in 2009 and ordains openly gay and lesbian priests, the leadership of the country's major Christian denominations has presented a solid front against the spread of same-sex marriage across the country. Further down the totem pole, churches are moving on without their leadership. According to a forthcoming report from the National Congregations Study at Duke University, the number of congregations allowing openly gay and lesbian members has increased from 38 to 48 percent since 2006. Twenty-seven percent of churches gave gay and lesbian congregants leadership roles in the same timeframe—an 8 percent jump. 

"Things don't change that much in religion—there's a lot of stability," says Mark Chaves, a sociologist at Duke and one of the researchers behind the study. "This is one of the biggest jumps on a specific subject we've seen since we first started collecting data in 1998." Indeed, while public support for same-sex marriage shot up in the last ten years—in 2003,.... But those who study religious opinion say the trend line among the faithful began to shoot up between 2008 and 2009. "The sea change has hit among religious organizations," says Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Overall, what we're seeing are the changes in American culture broadly reflected in attitudes of religious Americans as well."

... 

With the rift in the pews growing, the big question for religious institutions is whether the issue will lead to denominational splits as it did with slavery, which cleaved the Baptist Church and many other protestant denominations in two. A similar breakup occurred in the early 20th century over the doctrinal issue of Biblical inerrancy—the idea that the Bible contains the perfectly preserved word of God. Jones says that whether churches see similar schisms over same-sex marriage depends on how persistent the divide is. Given how quickly attitudes are changing, he thinks such a largescale schism is unlikely. "When you have big splits, the issue has to sit around for a while," he says. "But the issue is moving too quickly to produce settled coalitions that are facing off."

So, to those who continue to claim that faithful Christians and supporters of gay rights are mutually exclusive:   you are wrong.  LGBT Christians and their allies are finding their voices, and working to effect change.  It behooves us to highlight their support, because they are the biggest counter to the religious conservatives who claim that their faith makes them oppress us.

In Illinois today, a bill signing, and an exorcism

Today, the Governor of Illinois will sign marriage equality into law.

And the BIshop Thomas Paprocki of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield will hold an exorcism.

An exorcism, which often refers to a rite performed on an individual, is applicable in the case of same-sex marriage because the devil can appear “in various forms of opposition to and persecution of the church,” the diocese of Springfield said in statement.

You cannot make up this stuff.  The Bishop has not explained how a couple of gay gays getting married in Boystown is a "persecution of the church".

Still:  16.  And counting.

Image from Joe.My.God

REgnerus fallout

Do you remember the Regnerus study, in which a sociologist purported to show that children of gay parents do worse?  Problem is, his definition of "children with gay parents" REALLY was "children whose parents broke up and one MIGHT have been gay."  He didn't compare kids from stable straight families, to kids from stable gay families.  And as any scientist knows, you really have to control for all those variables if you want to draw a conclusion.

An investigation by the journal that published the data found that it was unjustifiable,  while the author was in a rather--shall we say, ethically shaky relationship with the far-right group that funded the study.  The peer review was anything but objective.  The primary scholarly group in this field has roundly criticized the study as not worth the paper it is printed on.  Since then, Regnerus has been on the "circuit" arguing that Teh Gayz make terrible parents.  (You can read our coverage here).

Trying to get at how an article with such dubious merits got published, a reporter has filed for documents from the University of Central Florida, where the editor is.  UCF is vigorously trying NOT to reveal the documents.  Hmmmm, wonder why?

More at The Regnerus Fallout site.

A straight man gains perspective (Video Sunday)

Is it Genetic? Testimony in HI (video Sunday)

The estimable Dean Hamer, who started his career as a yeast geneticist:

And Hawai'i makes 16

Marriage passed the Hawai'i house 30-19, now back to the Senate for a pro forma approval and then let the weddings begin! The people sing outside. NOte, however, that the opponents were vocal, outraged, and said some of the most vicious and vile things in their testimony, turning neighbor against neighbor. Can you imagine how it felt to be a gay person listening to that?

Hawai'i also has the distinction of having an openly gay lawmaker vote against marriage equality to "protect religious freedom". Wow. Talk about drinking the koolaid.

Testifying in Hawai'i

SB1, the Hawai'ian marriage equality bill, advanced out of the House judiciary committee on Tuesday after days of testimony by the public.  

Much of the testimony was prepared speeches by opponents, who somehow seemed to think that if they talked long enough, the bill would die. Reports David Badash,

Most of those opposed to equality identified themselves as “a registered voter” and “as a Christian” and claimed similar arguments: the bill is unconstitutional, it abridges their civil rights, children will be forced to learn about gay sex practices in school, what’s the rush?, let the people vote, homosexuality is a choice, this process is undemocratic, and homosexuality is against God.

Can you imagine what it must have been like to sit through that?  One alternative testifier, the film-maker Joe Wilson, made an important point in his awesome testimony:

During this special session, the people of Hawaii, and indeed the world, have been witness to the hell that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, mahu, and other people deemed unacceptable by self-righteous bullies know all too well. 

You have seen us sit here while people speak about us in the most dehumanizing terms as though we were not present, as though such vile mischaracterizations as perverts, bug chasers, cross-dressers, and security threats do not affect or terrify us -- as though such heinous lies do not inflict wounds or tear our souls apart. 

Having seen this, perhaps you now have an idea of what it might be like to be a young gay or gender non-conforming person in one of our schools terrorized by playground bullies who act this way. ...

Perhaps now you have some notion what it might be like to be a person who lost a job or apartment or was denied any number of opportunities most people take for granted because one of these loving individuals could not find it within themselves to be accepting or to understand that their personal beliefs do not now, nor will they ever, trump our right to live our lives as freely and openly -- and equally under the law -- as they live theirs. 

...

If so, I hope you'll agree that it is time to overcome this intolerance, and to not just pass what should be a simple thing like marriage equality, but to end these harms that have been done in the name of religion, tradition, and state-sanctioned discrimination for far too long -- and to begin to make our communities whole again.

Joe Wilson is married to the geneticist Dean Hamer, and they have made a film called Out in the Silence about life for gay folk in small town rural America.

Voices of Faith: Bishop responds to equality in IL

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Here's how a local Episcopal Bishop, the Rt Rev Jeffrey Lee, responded to news of marriage equality in Illinois:

The scriptures tell us to testify to what we have seen, and in communities and congregations across our diocese, we have seen that extending legal protection and respect to same-sex couples has created stronger, happier households and contributed to the common good. Now in Illinois, the respect afforded by civil unions has been extended to the dignity of true equality. I rejoice that it is now easier for our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers to order their lives together, to care for one another and to raise children in a stable home. Justice has been done.

Because both church and state claim authority over the institution of marriage, this legal victory takes on theological dimensions. As I have written before, I believe that marriage is a sacred vocation. The union of two persons in heart, body and mind is a school of holiness, a way of ordering our lives so that we might learn to be more faithful servants of Christ. I also believe that the faithful, loving, and lifelong union of two persons--of the same sex or of opposite sexes--is capable of signifying the never failing love of God in Christ for the church and the world. Such unions can be sources and signs of grace, both for the couple and for the wider community. And I believe that we need all of the sources and signs of grace that we can get.

Here in the Diocese of Chicago, once marriage equality takes effect in June 2014, clergy will be permitted, but not required, to witness same-sex marriages in the State of Illinois and to officiate at the blessing of these holy unions using "I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing," the liturgical rite approved by General Convention in 2012.

I am grateful to be a bishop in a state that offers all couples equality and in a church that provides all couples with a community of faith, love, support and accountability. I am grateful to be a bishop in a state that offers all couples equality and in a church that provides all couples with a community of faith, love, support and accountability.

Next time one of the "antis" tries to make our equality into a conflict with people of faith, remember this!

And then there were 15....

Wow, that happened quickly! From Lambda Legal

With a vote of 61-54, today the Illinois House of Representatives passed The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, a historic vote that sends the bill first to the Senate for a concurring vote and then to Governor Pat Quinn who has pledged to sign it. ....

Governor Quinn has pledged to sign the bill, making Illinois the 15th state in the country and the third in the Midwest to grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Once signed, the law will go into effect June 1st, 2014.

The President on ENDA

From the Huffington Post, an OpEd by POTUS:

Here in the United States, we're united by a fundamental principle: we're all created equal and every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. We believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the chance to follow your dreams and pursue your happiness. That's America's promise. 

That's why, for instance, Americans can't be fired from their jobs just because of the color of their skin or for being Christian or Jewish or a woman or an individual with a disability. 

That kind of discrimination has no place in our nation. And yet, right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
As a result, millions of LGBT Americans go to work every day fearing that, without any warning, they could lose their jobs -- not because of anything they've done, but simply because of who they are. 

It's offensive. It's wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense. 

That's why Congress needs to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which would provide strong federal protections against discrimination, making it explicitly illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill has strong bipartisan support and the support of a vast majority of Americans. It ought to be the law of the land.

A New Jersey Love Story (video Sunday)

Missouri Fail: Why it Matters

So, a policeman in Missouri was killed in the line of duty.  What happened to his family?

On Christmas Day 2009, Missouri State Trooper, Corporal Dennis Engelhard was hit and killed in the line of duty when a car hit an icy patch and veered out of control. He left behind his partner of 15 years, Kelly Glossip, and Kelly’s son who they were jointly raising. 

The Police and Fireman’s Fund held a fundraiser for the parents, at which they ignored Engelhard’s spouse and child. The State Troopers issued an obituary stating that Engelhard was ‘single’ and the Governor asked people to pray for his family, who who “lost a beloved son and brother.” 

And, naturally, claiming that Glossip was just “a boyfriend”, the state refused to provide him with the survivor benefits to which any spouse is entitled and which are intended to help the family go on after an officer is killed. 

Glossip sued. And today the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Glossip had no rights. Not because of his orientation, oh no of course not, but because of the gay yarmulke, marriage laws. Although they had exchanged rings, they weren’t a family. (OzarksFirst)

So, let's get this logic straight.

Glossip gets no benefits because they weren't married.

The state won't let them marry.

But this isn't because he's gay, it's because he's not married.  After all, if Glossip were a woman, she wouldn't get benefits.

REALLY?  if Glossip were a woman, she could have married Engelhard!  And not to marry would have been a CHOICE.

It seems to me that to avoid this, any gay couple who wants any chance at protections has to travel to a state that allows marriage.  We saw this in Ohio, which doesn't allow same sex marriages, but where a judge ruled in favor of the recognition of a couple married out of state on a death certificate.  That's the only wedge.  Otherwise, they can continue to treat couples like this.

#proudtolove (video Sunday)

Voting = gay (video)

Too short for a video Sunday!

The Constitution and equality

Lyle Denniston considers the unusual situation that brought equality to New Jersey and cautions,

The political reality at the moment – and one must stress that the reality might well change – is that full marriage equality will not come into being until the national Constitution recognizes it – either by court interpretation, or by formal amendment. In the near term, it is hard to predict that the end of this reality is in sight. 

That kind of approach can only work in states where politics or court rulings have already established some foundation of equality for gay and lesbian couples, and the number of states that have done that is not a lengthy list. So, in the states where that foundation does not yet exist, marriage equality will only come about through either a bold new court declaration, a change of heart in the state legislature, or a new wave of popular support that can carry the day in a voter referendum. 

There is, of course, one other way: the U.S. Supreme Court could be asked, in the quite-near future, to rule that same-sex couples do have a constitutional right to marriage equality. The Justices may be presented with that fundamental question sooner than some have expected. When that test does arise, as it will, what has been happening in the states may well help to shape the Justices’ reaction, but there is no guarantee of the outcome.

Will Oregon be next?

Effective immediately, the state of Oregon will recognize marriages of same-sex couples from marriage equality states.

The Oregon Department of Justice issued the ruling last week, noting Oregon has historically recognized marriages from other states and countries that would not have been legal to enter into in the state of Oregon. The ruling says same-sex marriages should be no different. ...

Although Oregon passed “Measure 36″, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in 2004, opponents from Oregon United For Marriage hope to overturn it with a ballot measure next year. They have earmarked $12 million toward that effort.
...
Oregon United for Marriage is looking for volunteers to help collect signatures to get a repeal of Oregon’s “Measure 36″ on the ballot in 2014. If you can help, you can sign up here.

(source)

And New Jersey makes 14....

Marriages begin today in New Jersey.

Dear Straight People.... (Video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak out: Bishop Gene Robinson on the streets of NY (video Sunday)

Bishop Gene Robinson's Sermon on Gay Pride Day from Auburn Seminary on Vimeo.

And she keeps me warm (video Sunday)

Have you seen Macklemore and Lewis' video "Same love"?  If you liked the "hook" in that ("She keeps me warm"), here's the full length version

Governor of PA compares same sex marriage to incest.

This was to apologize for comparing same sex marriages to marriages between children.

Best response comes from openly gay PA state senator Brian Sims:

No one, not even his own party, would argue that he’s an intellectual heavyweight or even a particularly thoughtful person. ...

Our job isn’t just to be frustrated with the homophobia coming from the Governor’s Mansion, it’s to do everything we can to ensure that his chapter in Pennsylvania’s political history is as sad and short as his record on schools, economic development and civil rights. 

Corbett is running for re-election. Keep talking, Governor.

What has happened in MA since the gays got married?

Not much.  From Think Progress, we learn that 85% of MA voters say, no big deal.

[Marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball. 

And even 66 percent of Massachusetts Republicans concede marriage equality has had no negative effect on them. According to the PPP poll, Massachusetts voters now support same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 60 to 29 percent margin.

So, we do know what happens when Teh Gayz marry.

Gays marry.

End.

Dream Team Boies and Olson to take on Virginia

I have often called Virginia the "State of Hate" because they not only ban marriages between same-sex couples, they also ban civil unions, recognition of any marriages, and indeed, any civil efforts to provide relationship protection like employer-benefits, etc. 

"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia." (Source)

The Prop8-AFER dream team of powerhouse attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies are going to take on Virginia.  Although they won their Prop 8 case, it was on a technicality that only applied to California.  Their goal is to achieve marriage equality nation wide.  From the WaPo:

Olson said AFER was invited to join the case by attorneys for the plaintiffs, Norfolk residents Timothy Bostic and Tony London, whose marriage application was turned down, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who have a 15-year-old daughter and whose marriage in California is not recognized by the commonwealth. 

Virginia is an “attractive target,” said Olson, who lives in the state, because its rejection of same-sex marriage and civil unions is so complete. 

“The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it’s unconstitutional,” Olson said.

Of course, there is a risk.

But some supporters of same-sex marriage fear the suits are coming too fast. The justices turned down the chance to find a constitutional right to marry only months ago, and Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor also contained his caution that “history and tradition” give states the right to define marriage. 

After giving the victories, the slim Supreme Court majority might favor letting the political process, rather than the judicial, take the lead. 

Olson is unmoved by that theory. 

“I’m not going to get into the justices and what they each said and what Justice Scalia said,” Olson said. “Given what was said in DOMA [decision] and given the record we made in California and given what we’re going to establish in Virginia, we’re going to be able to persuade a majority of the court that this is the right thing.”

Let us remember that George Bush senior recently was a witness at a same sex marriage, and Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has officiated at two weddings.  Slowly, surely.....

News from New Jersey

From ThinkProgress

A New Jersey judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the state constitution, ordering marriage equality will take effect on October 21, 2013 — assuming the decision is not stayed. The decisiondoes not overturn the civil unions law, but asserts that same-sex couples must also have the right to marriage, including all the federal benefits now associated with it post-Defense of Marriage Act.

Because separate is not equal.

Go, Garden State!

Voices of Faith: the viral video (video Sunday)

This video for the NALT project (Christians are not all like that)  has gone viral and been viewed more than 100,000 times.  Go ahead and share it!

 

Getting rich from marriage inequality

Several times on this blog, I've reflected on the lucrative business model of opponents of marriage equality. (I've grouped the posts under the label of "follow the money"). From the now-discredited George Rekers, who testified for $$$$, to NOM's Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, who have various shell groups that pay them generously, the business of opposing marriage rights generates quite a lot of cash.

Over at JoeMyGod, Joe frequently points at the money-begging emails from another distasteful anti-gay activist, a Virginia county supervisor named Eugene Delgaudio.

And I'm sure Frank Schubert, the "mastermind" behind the Prop8 campaign and most of the other ones state campaigns, is doing very nicely based on this business model.  (Although we wonder if his business will drop off since he hasn't been so successful lately.)

Now, ThinkProgress has done some digging into the finances of Gary Bauer, and shows that his various PACS and action committees pay him VERY generously for....  what exactly?  He's a consultant, apparently.  Here's an example:

So far, Americans United to Preserve Marriage has paid Bauer more than $260,000 — and between 2009 and 2012, Bauer received more than half of the committee’s total spending.

So, you donate money to this group and half of it goes to Bauer.  Hmmm.  And then this:

The Campaign for Working Families PAC, a traditional political action committee first created in 1996, began 2013 with nearly $1 million left in the bank. The committee, which calls itself “the leading pro-family, pro-life political action committee in America,” claims to exist “solely to raise funds to support or oppose candidates based upon their political views.” But starting in March, Bauer began paying himself $13,750 a month for “political and admin” consulting — $68,750 over the past five months, and several times more than the $8,250 the committee has given, total, to federal political candidates so far this year.

The "Great Gay Menace" drives donations to these groups, which use those donations to pay the leaders large amounts of money. So, being anti-equality is big business, and they are getting rich on it.  It may also explain why people like Brian Brown are getting increasingly shrill and more anti-gay, not limiting his remarks to marriage.  Because slowly but surely, his marks are realizing that marriage equality is inevitable.  He's got to yell and instill fear if his big business model is going to keep going.

But do they really want to win?  They'd be out of a job, if they did....

Illinois can't wait; Why it matters (video Sunday)

Illinois is dragging its feet on equality. Here's a story of how that delay has tragic effects.

Will equal marriage eliminate the cash cow of the Religious Right?

Joseph R. Murray, II is a civil rights attorney who used to work for the anti-gay American Family association. He now is a supporter of equality and of the NALT Christians campaign.  He writes,

After the Christian Right tapped out the pro-life issue, the captains of Christian industry needed a new sales pitch to keep the coffers filled. These folks thought they saw the light in 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.... 

[T]he Christian Right had invested heavily in a propaganda machine that specialized in promulgating unjust stereotypes. Instead of letting the flock see gay couples as the neighbors next door, the Christian Right made it a point to portray all gays with the wildest pictures they could find from the Castro. 

It was a brilliant strategy, for if groups like AFA could scare the faithful with pictures that portrayed the gay community in the worst light, it could frame the debate as one of deviancy versus decency. There were two problems with this strategy, though: 

First, in order for the campaign to succeed the Right had to forsake the very Christian principles it claimed to be protecting. In typical fashion, a few Ben Franklins made it much easier for them to put profit over principle. 

Second, the strategy would only work if the Christian Right could force gays, as well as those Christians that supported them, into the closet. It was the second problem that would result in the demise of the Christian right.

...Look at the lunacy pouring out of the Christian right. Don Wildmon claims to defend marriage, but endorses twice divorced, three times married Newt Gingrich for president. Mat Staver and Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel are out there invoking Jerry Sandusky to support the medieval notion that you can “pray the gay away.”

And, of course, Bryan Fischer is like a drunken uncle at a wedding who must continually be outrageous in hopes that someone will pay attention.

Why is this happening? Because the Christian right doubled down on gay discrimination and lost. 

NALT, however, will be a devastating blow the Christian Right. Frankly, all the videos pouring into NALT re-affirm one basic fact –- the Christian Right no longer can claim to have a monopoly on morality.

REvised Prop8 timeline

You can also find this on its own permanent page, here.

Comprehensive look at the rest of the states

Are you curious about other states?  Think Progress has an "Equality Roundup" showing us where all the other states are, when it comes to equality.

You can't be unfair, yet kind

From Slacktivist: 

I read this self-serving attempt to be the “nice” bigot by Halee Gray Scott at Christianity Today’sher•meneutics blog, “I Am Not Charles Worley: The Plea of a Christian Who Opposes Gay Marriage.” 

Scott wants you to understand that she’s not at all like the infamous homophobic preacher Worley. She’s totally different. 

Worley wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality because he hates them. Scott wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality for other reasons. 

See? See how very different they are? Same result. Same vote. Same fundamental discrimination enshrined in law. But Worley is mean. Scott is nice. 

And Scott has had it up to here with people not recognizing the extreme importance of that distinction....
....
Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely. ....

Scott wants to carve out a space in which she can be unfair, but still kind. Such a space does not exist and cannot exist.

Somebody loves you (video Sunday)

Hey people, if this can happen in UTAH....

well....

we're gonna win.

Pull out your kleenex for Spencer and Dustin!

NM Photography case to go to the Supreme Court

If I have a religious disapproval of someone, can I deny them service in my non-religious company?

If they are gay, is that okay?  If my religion is opposed to gays marrying?

What if they are  Jewish?  If my religion considers Jews untouchable?

How about divorced? If my religion is opposed to divorce?

What about remarried?  If my religion is opposed to remarriage?

What about if they are Catholic?  If my religion considers Catholics to be un-Christian?

What if the woman doesn't cover her head? If my religion is fundamentalist Islam?

What if she does?  If my religion is opposed to Islam?

The photographer in NM who refused to photograph a same-sex commitment service, in violation of state law that outlaws discrimination on sexual orientation, will be asking the Supreme Court to say, "yes".

Initiative dropped in AZ

Hawaii may be surging ahead, but Arizona, not so much.

Equal Marriage Arizona, the primary group behind the initiative, says efforts were scuttled because key national advocacy groups withheld backing of the initiative for 2014 because they believed there would be a greater chance of winning in 2016. 

“They didn’t feel like Arizona was ready for equal marriage in 2014,” said Equal Marriage Arizona cochair Erin Ogletree Simpson. “I’m just happy our effort has prompted a focus from the various groups to look at 2016 and start putting together a strategy.”

Arizona is very, very conservative.  There's a big Mormon contingent there too.

Will the Aloha State be next?

From ThinkProgress:

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has called for a special legislative session to consider a marriage equality bill, pointing out that allowing same-sex couples to marry is important to address in a timely fashion because of implications for those couples’ taxes next year. The session will begin October 28 and last a couple of days, but Abercrombie believes that every view “has been aired, has been analyzed, has been discussed” such that “no one has been left out or has been marginalized in the process to this point.”

The proposed bill specifically references the Supreme Court’s decisions earlier this summer in the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, highlighting how the state’s civil unions deprive couples of the federal rights they could now access with marriage.... 

Marriage equality legislation was proposed earlier this year, but did not advance due to procedural hurdles by a few lawmakers that prevented it from advancing through the committee process. Nevertheless, polls consistently show that a majority of Hawaiians support full marriage equality.

Aloha, indeed!

From Australia: how politicians should respond to anti-gay "Christians" (video Sunday)

Kevin Rudd is a candidate for PM of Australia. Here, he responds to the rebuke of a "Christian Pastor" who disapproves that Rudd is an equality supporter. This is an off-the-cuff, articulate defense of equality that I wish our politicians in the US could muster. Moreover, Rudd grounds his defense in Christian morality, taking down the "Pastor" to the applause of the audience. Well done, sir!

Do we need to know that Diana Nyad is gay?

Yes. And here's why:

When you insist being gay couldn’t possibly matter less, what you actually insist is that the subject never be brought up in the first place.

One day, it will not matter whether Diana Nyad, Tim Cook, Sally Ride, or any other noteworthy person is openly gay. But we’re not there yet. Until we are, it is our responsibility as LGBTQ people to remind the rest of the world that we’re still here, we’re comfortable in our own skins, we come in all shapes, sizes and specialties, and, once in a blue moon, some of us can even swim from Cuba to Florida. We should be proud to say so.

Voices of Faith Speak out! The NALT project

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Inspired by the "It gets better" campaign, there is a new video campaign to give voice to those Christians who are passionate advocates for equality.  It's called NALT Christians Project (NALT is a term coined by DanSavage, meaning, Not All Like That).

I've been highlighting pro-equality people of faith here at GMC for some time, via my "Voices of Faith Speak Out" series.  I'm glad to see increasing numbers of faithful making their support known.

I hope the videos go far and wide.  Here's an example, from an Episcopal priest in New Mexico:

Church and State (the Video, it's Sunday!)

What's happening in New Mexico?

Back in the heyday of Bush-Rove, who cynically ran for office on a wave of anti-gay sentiment, there was a flurry of anti-equal-marriage amendments to state Constitutions. These now must be laboriously undone. New Mexico somehow managed to escape either amendment or initiative, and its laws and constitution say nothing either way on same sex couples.

Now,three counties in NM will provide licenses to same sex couples. From the StarTribune:

An Albuquerque judge on Monday ordered the clerk of New Mexico's most populous county to join two other counties in the state in issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

State District Judge Alan Malott ruled that New Mexico's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.... [A] judge in a separate case ordered the Santa Fe County clerk to issue same-sex licenses. The clerk of Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico decided on his own early last week to recognize same-sex marriage.

Predictably, Republican legislators are trying to stop it, but it's not clear how, since there is no law against it. They could try a Prop8-style effort. Remember, in CA, the state supreme court found that marriage was legal, and 18,000 couples married in the 6 months between that decision and the passage of the H8 amendment (which has now fallen). We'll see. Meanwhile, one more quote from the paper.

Christine Butler of Albuquerque, who opposes gay marriage and attended the hearing, said the judge's ruling violates her rights.

"I don't want to bring my children or go to places and see same-sex couples showing a lot of affection. ... That's against God's law," said Butler.

Bless her heart. Honey, we don't have to be married to go places and show affection. Your children are just going to have to learn that there's a whole rainbow of people out there, whether you approve of us or not. And those of us with faith are quite sure that God is smiling upon us.

Celebration from the SF gay men's chorus (video Sunday)

"Overturning the will of the people": we've been down this road before

Once upon a time, there was a decision in California that extended protections and rights to an unpopular minority.

The response was a ballot initiative to reverse the decision, and to amend the state constitution so that the protections and rights were rolled back. This passed convincingly at the ballot box.

There was a legal challenge. The state refused to defend the amendment, to the ire of its supporters.  The courts stepped in, and ultimately found that that the amendment was unconstitutional. Despite the support of the majority of voters, it was declared invalid.

Proposition 8? No.

I'm talking Proposition 14, which was passed in 1964 with a whopping 65% majority, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967.

The story: in 1963, the California legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act that stated property owners could not refuse to rent or sell property to anyone because of ethnicity. It also included religion, sex, marital and family status, and physical handicap. This was considered an important landmark for civil rights.

In 1964, Proposition 14 (sponsored by real estate and Republican groups) stated that property owners could indeed discriminate. As I said, it passed convincingly.

When it was challenged in court, the state declined to defend Proposition 14, because  Gov Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father) considered it unconstitutional.  The California Supreme Court found that Prop 14 violated equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The Supreme Court of the US agreed. In Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), SCOTUS invalidated Prop 14 by a 5-4 decision.  From the decision, they pointed out the real consequences of Prop 14:

The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, could now discriminate

As Wikipedia tells us, "Reitman established a significant precedent because it held that state assistance or encouragement of private discrimination violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. As of 2013, this precedent remains good law."

You might want to pass this along to the bloviating anti-equality die-hards, who continue to advocate for the right to do just that.

It's over

The California Supreme Court has denied the petition by Prop8 proponents seeking to stop marriages in the state.

ProtectMarriage had argued that the federal order in the case only applied narrowly to the two couples, that all other counties in California were obligated to enforce Prop 8, and other issues that would have led to enforcing Prop 8 across California, except for two counties. The state had argued that the petition was an attempt to make changes to a federal court’s order in California state courts, a move that is not permitted by the federal Constitution.

So it's over.

And while our opponents are seething that the "will of the people" has been denied, may I remind them (yet again) that we do not have a direct democracy, we have a republic and with that, a balance of powers in which the Courts work to protect the rights of the minority.

So, even though in the Civil Rights era, a majority of voters in the south surely would have voted to keep Jim Crow laws intact, they fell.  And even though a majority of Americans disapproved of marriage between the races, those laws also fell.

A majority does not get to take away rights from a minority based solely on numbers.

Tale of Two Dads (Video Sunday)

Why it matters: legal spouses still denied federal benefits

From Think Progress

The Social Security Administration announced on Friday that it will begin offering partner benefits to same-sex couples, but in a limited capacity, adding that it has additional “policy and processing instructions” to develop over the coming months. As BuzzFeed reports, however, the benefits will not be applied as consistently as some other federal benefits have been made available to same-sex couples since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. 

For now at least, only married same-sex couples who live in a state that recognizes their marriages will be eligible to receive the Social Security spousal benefit. This is inconsistent with other benefits, such asrecognition for immigration purposes, which rely entirely on “place of celebration.” In other words, a same-sex couple could marry in Minnesota and move next door to North Dakota, and one spouse could still sponsor the other for a green card, but that spouse couldn’t receive spousal Social Security benefits because they’re in a state without marriage equality.

The solution is that for all Federal Benefits to depend on whether the marriage was legally performed in the state where it was celebrated, and not tie to to the domicile of the couple.  Either that or all gay people will have to  leave the States of Hate.

Reparative therapy...for homophobes! (Video Sunday)

Gays Beware with Jesse Tyler Ferguson and George Takei from Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Pentagon to give soldiers "wedding leave"?

From the AP:

Same-sex spouses of military members could get health care, housing and other benefits by the end of August under a proposal being considered by the Pentagon. But earlier plans to provide benefits to gay partners who are not married may be reversed. 

A draft Defense Department memo obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press says the department instead may provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

I have no problem with this.  if marriage is the gold standard, then by all means, give soliders/sailors/airmen  an opportunity to go get married, so that their families can be eligible for benefits.

Good on the Pentagon.

The Riddle (video Sunday)

New Poll shows Americans understand religious liberty just fine, thank you

The Human Rights Campaign and the organization, Third Way, released a national poll that asks about attitudes towards gay couples with regard to religious freedom. And, not surprisingly, Americans "get" that religious freedom is an issue for the churches, mosques, and synagogues, and not an excuse to discriminate against people in the civil sphere.

From the Press Release: 

Thirty percent of the country now lives in a state where gay couples can marry, and Americans’ views are warming faster than ever. But the shrinking group of politicians who still oppose allowing gay couples to marry often argues that doing so would infringe on the religious liberty of marriage opponents. 

...The results of our national poll are clear:

• Americans know that our laws and Constitution already robustly protect religious liberty, and they do not think marriage or non-discrimination laws threaten religious beliefs or practices.
• Voters oppose new proposals which would allow government employees, businesses, or individuals who oppose marriage on religious grounds to deny services to gay people or couples.
• When it comes to religious exemptions, voters are clear that they should be limited to places like churches and synagogues and people like pastors, priests, and rabbis.-  

So, once again to the Roman Catholic Bishops and the Baptist Blowhards:  you do not get to discriminate against us in the civil sphere.  In secular business, members of your faith do not get to deny LGBT people services that they freely offer anyone else., just because they are gay.

If you have a question about that, just substitute the word "Jew" for "gay" in sentences like "I shouldn't have to sell gays a cake, because they are against my faith."   Yeah,doesn't work, does it?

On the other hand, how about this, "My church refuses to marry a Jewish couple."  That's fine.  no problem.  You have every right to say that.  But Why wouldyou think a Jewish couple want to be married in your church in the first place?

Can you spot the difference? 

Marriages Begin in MN and RI

Same sex couples are now able to marry in Minnesota and Rhode Island.  Congratulations, everyone!

From the Star Tribune:

The streets outside Minneapolis City Hall were filled with newly-wedded gay and lesbian couples reveling in their new marital status Thursday morning while inside dozens more waited their turn in lines that lasted until dawn. 

Down the street at the Hotel Minneapolis, Cathy ten Broeke and Margaret Miles, the first couple legally wed in Minnesota, partied into the night, wearing the same slinky dresses they wore 12 years earlier at their commitment ceremony. This time, ten Broeke said with some satisfaction, was different because this “was the state of Minnesota committing to us and our family.” 

Mayor R.T. Rybak worked through the night and early morning hours, officiating the weddings of 42 gay and lesbian couples on the marble steps of the City Hall Rotunda where, at the bottom, the massive Father of Waters statue was surrounded by folding chairs, wedding guests and dozens of clicking cameras.

And from the Providence Journal: 

From Newport to Pawtucket, Rhode Islanders Thursday visited city halls at the first moments on the first day that marriage licenses are available for gay couples.

In Newport, Federico Santi and John Gacher came in promptly at 8 a.m. to the City Clerk's office to get their marriage license.

They had waited 41 years for this and within a few minutes the documents were signed and the couple were married. They were the first same-sex couple to marry in Newport under a new state law.

Congratulations, everyone!

"Christian" pastor has harsh words for gay-affirming clergy

He wants to punch them out, in fact.  He calls it, "going Old Testament on them."

But the righteous Reverend Susan Russell (Episcopal priest from All Saint's Church, Pasadena) takes down the so called "Christian Pastor" Matt Brown.

My biggest issue is with the Pastor Matt Browns of the world who don’t see the disconnect between “being the best neighbor possible” and denying the marriage of your gay or lesbian neighbor the same respect you expect for your own. Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” – and there was no asterisk that said *”unless your neighbor is a same-sex couple.” (Matthew 22:39)

My biggest issue is that a pastor advocating violence against those who disagree with him about marriage equality gives license to those he leads to “go and do likewise” and fuels the fires of gay bashing, hate crimes and puts LGBT youth at risk. Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) – not “punch them out.”

And -- putting aside for a moment the 21st century reality that not all clergy are men -- my biggest issue is with the clergymen who have hijacked the Gospel in the service of their own homophobia. It is with those who have taken the Good News of God’s inclusive love proclaimed by the radical rabbi from Nazareth and turned it into a weapon of mass discrimination against LGBT children of God. And it is with those – like Pastor Matt – whose polemic preaching throws Jesus under the bus every time he gives those yearning for a spiritual community yet another reason not to try Christianity. 

Clergy who preside at the blessing of marriages of same-sex couples have not thrown Jesus out – they have pulled him out from under the bus the Pastor Matts of the world have thrown him.

In the interests of full disclosure,  I attend an Episcopal church where every priest is gay-affirming. And where they actually, you know, perform weddings of gay couples.

So take that, "Pastor" Matt.

ILove Marriage in Illinois: It's Just Time (video Sunday)

Have a hanky ready:

UPDATED-- DOMA decision repercussions in Ohio: Why it matters

Two weeks ago, John Arthur and Jim Obergefell flew from their Ohio home to Maryland to marry. They did it in a chartered plane with speciality medical equipment, because John is dying of ALS. Upon return to Ohio, they sued to have their marriage recognized, so that Jim could be listed as "husband" on John's death certificate.

And yesterday, a federal judge ruled in their favor.

Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors. 

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single outsame sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot … at least not under the circumstances here. 

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sexmarriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. 

The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse.'

Marriage matters, even unto death.  And the DOMA decision from SCOTUS is already reverberating.  John Aravosis writes,

I really think the court granted us nationwide gay marriage in all but name. Yes, the way they did it requires us to go state-by-state and strike down individual state-DOMA laws, but that was the genius of the court’s decision. They paid homage to the notion that the court shouldn’t upend the “democratic experiment” taking place in the states, while at the same time coming up with a decision that basically leaves the states no wiggle room to say “no” to marriage equality for gays once the state DOMAs are challenged. 

So yes, it will take longer for us to get marriage in 50 states – thus a nod to the notion that the court shouldn’t change everything nationwide immediately – but at the same time, they pretty much guaranteed that we’ll win. And this Ohio ruling is quite possibly the first evidence of that fact.

Meanwhile, those of you so inclined might put John Arthur and Jim Obergefell on your prayer list.

Update:  the Attorney General plans to appeal, even though the Court's ruling is specific to these two individuals and can have no possible bearing on any other Ohioan.  From Think Progress:

The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur’s husband as his “surviving spouse” on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he wouldappeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.
There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge’s order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell..... 

Yet, while Ohio has nothing to gain from simply complying with the judges’ order, Arthur and Obergefell have a tremendous amount to lose. Thanks to DeWine’s appeal, Arthur will spend his last days unsure whether he and his husband can someday lie together in his family burial plot. The two men’s final moments will be poisoned by uncertainty over their lawsuit.... 

There is a common refrain among marriage equality’s opponents that discrimination is necessary to remove some kind of “threat” equality poses to straight couples’ marriages. This case is a put up or shut up moment for these voices. ...Who does DeWine think he is serving by filing this appeal? 

Someday very soon, Obergefell will go home, lie in an empty bed, and confront for the first time the prospect of a life without his husband. In that moment of loss, he believes he will find some comfort if the State of Ohio acknowledges that he feels the same pain that he would have felt if he were married to a woman. That’s what DeWine wants to take away. And it will gain the people of Ohio nothing.

Update 2:  the AG will not appeal after all.

Sex in Virginia

Ken Cuccinelli is the attorney general of Virginia and Republican nominee for governor.  He is rabidly anti gay.

As one of his big issues, he's trying to criminalize sodomy and oral sex between consenting adults, under the guise of protecting children.  Now, the US Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas that you can't criminalize sex acts between consenting adults, so this effort is clearly unconstitutional.  Thing is, all you have to do is say that such acts are illicit involving minors (who by law cannot give consent) and voila, you protect kids.

So it's clear that Cooch is aiming at LGBT people

Problem for him is, that is SO 2006.  

Ken Cuccinelli's election of strategy of running on his long-standing opposition to homosexuality might have worked in 2009, when Cuccinelli won the attorney general race in Virginia. But the country's shift on gay politics didn't miss the state, putting Cuccinelli at risk of losing key Republican donors and the governor's race. 

The timing of his embrace of anti-gay rhetoric couldn't be much worse. Cuccinelli is running in a close race with Democrat Terry McAuliffe. Several polls, including one from Quinnipiac University last week, show McAuliffe with a slight lead. But in another metric, fundraising, McAuliffe is far ahead — thanks, in part, to reticence from pas Republican donors to give to Cuccinelli. Bloomberg reports that Cuccinelli's adamant social conservative positions are a key factor in that antipathy....

Cuccinelli has raised 40 percent less than McAuliffe to date.

Because businessmen want to be able to recruit the best candidate, and not be limited to straight white men with conservative social views.  And women and gays and their friends and families are not attracted to live and work in the State of Hate.

And a majority of Virginians now approve of marriage equality.

San Diego county clerk embarrases everyone

We have all been expecting one of the 58 county clerks in CA to join the H8ers in their attempt to shut down marriages in CA.  But I'm sure everyone thought it would be one of the clerks in Red California--the largely conservative, rural inland areas.

How embarrassing that it turns out to be the clerk in San Diego.  While San Diego trends fiscally conservative, and there are pockets of social conservativism, most of the Republicans are practical business types.  San Diego has actually become quite gay friendly.  Our last mayor (a Republican) was a marriage supporter, and the Republican nominee to replace him is openly gay. 

You should have no doubt about where this originates:

Dronenburg’s lawyers, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, it should be noted, have on their board of directors one concerned citizen of note not mentioned in his Supreme Court petition: Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, the group that was the top financial contributor responsible for getting Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008.

Meanwhile, the LA Times notes that the largely-Republican County supervisors are quite annoyed. 

 San Diego County's Board of Supervisors, a majority of whom are Republican, sought to distance themselves from Dronenburg's action, which was filed for him by Charles S. LiMandri, a Rancho Santa Fe attorney and leader of the bid to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

"The county clerk has acted independently on this matter,'' board Supervisor Greg Cox said. "No one else from the county was consulted or had any part of this court action, including the Board of Supervisors. The county's position is and always has been that we, the county, will follow applicable law with regards to same-sex marriage." 

Supervisor David Roberts, who is gay, said that as soon as he heard what Dronenburg had done, he demanded a meeting to find out his motives. 

"I was livid, to say the least," Roberts said. "As the first LGBT supervisor, with a married partner, I felt this was a slap in the face. But he says that's not what this is about. We'll see." 

....
Gay rights groups reacted with rage and disdain to the latest filing. 

Ted Boutros, one of the lawyers who challenged Proposition 8 in federal court, said the petition was "just as meritless and desperate" as the one filed by ProtectMarriage. It cannot change the fact, he said, that "marriage equality has returned."

Importantly, the clerk continues to issue licenses and people continue to get married in the meantime.